Right Job, Wrong Question

Handling Inappropriate Interview Queries

By

Dennis Nishi

Jan. 11, 2014 8:10 p.m. ET

Headhunter
Josh Bear
found the perfect match for a small Silicon Valley startup that needed an experienced app developer. The job candidate had the exact skills his client needed and she, in turn, expressed an interest in working on the company's product line, says Mr. Bear, chief operating officer at Jivaro Professional Headhunters in Sunnyvale, Calif.

The candidate aced her first three face-to-face meetings but got worried when she was asked about her Middle Eastern heritage by a fourth interviewer. She knew the question wasn't job-related but she still replied, hoping that the discussion would get back on course. When the interviewer began talking about a news story that he'd seen about the political upheaval in her country, she politely tried to change the subject. The interviewer then closed his folder, thanked her, and walked out of the room.

Instead of giving up, the upset candidate wrote a letter to the company that expressed how inappropriate she felt the questions were. The CEO responded with an apology, after dressing down his employee. He told her that the interviewer had made an awkward attempt to be social and that he'd been taken off the interview board. The CEO then offered to resume the hiring process with a new interviewer. She accepted and is now one of the final candidates for the job.

ENLARGE

John Nickle

Despite the legal risks of doing so, some companies do ask job candidates about their age, lifestyle, gender, race or even religion. In most cases, that's because interviewers aren't adequately trained on what questions are out of bounds. In some cases, though, companies try unlawfully to assess whether, for example, an employee with children can put in 50 hours a week. Career experts say job candidates need to know what questions are appropriate, both to protect themselves and to prepare suitable responses that won't ruin their chances of getting the job.

Even indirect questions can be problematic if the implicit question is inappropriate, says
Risa Lieberwitz,
professor of labor and employment law at Cornell University's Industrial and Labor Relations School in Ithaca, N.Y. "What you got is somebody saying that 'I'm not supposed to ask for this information but I'm going to do it anyways. It's unethical since it's the same question, basically."

Job seekers can get one step ahead with some due diligence and planning. Try to anticipate concerns that employers may have about you and prepare responses before the interview. If you're an older employee, for example, and know that the hiring company may be concerned about when you plan to retire, you can deflect the question by saying that there's no expiration date on your career, says
Tim Honn,
founder of Fortis Recruiting Solutions in Lisle, Ill. You can also turn that concern around and highlight the value of your hard-earned tenure.

"You can, for example, offer to mentor up-and-coming people within the organization," says Mr. Honn.

Determine why the interviewer is asking inappropriate questions and try to address those specific concerns directly. This should allow you to avoid the illegal part of the question. If the interviewer asks if you are a U.S. citizen or what country you're from, you can respond by saying that you are legally authorized to work in the U.S.

Try not to be confrontational or defensive, since you don't want to alienate the interviewer with allegations of illegality. Remain poised and professional at all times and keep the discussion productive for both parties. Ideally, the goal is to establish a rapport with the interviewer, since a meaningful connection can help to establish a lasting impression. You can ask for clarification if you—or the interviewer—don't understand the relevance of a question. You can deflect a question by replying with a question.

Don't be afraid to stand up for yourself if the discussion really makes you uncomfortable, says Mr. Honn. If the discussion turns truly toxic, you should walk out and file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Throughout the entire process, you should be asking yourself if this is a company that you want to work for. Says Jivaro's Mr. Bear: "Interviews are meant to be two-way, so you should be assessing if a company that is asking about your sexual orientation is right for you, too."

I was coached long ago that the only acceptable "personal" question is, "Is there anything in your personal life now, or likely in the future, that might prevent you from working normal office hours which are (e.g.) 8:30 to 5:30, five days a week? Yes or no will suffice." I still think that's a reasonable and appropriate phrasing, and really all I as an employer need to know.

Waling out of interviews can be enjoyable. Did it to UPS about 23 years ago when I was told I would have to shave my beard. The interviewer was pretty much speechless. The ban was since the Teamsters were told no beards then no one else could have one either. Suits and ties were the norm at the time for the office even for software developers. Another strike against.

"Despite the legal risks of doing so, some companies do ask job candidates about their age, lifestyle, gender, race or even religion. In most cases, that's because interviewers aren't adequately trained on what questions are out of bounds."

in many cases, interviewers are not adequately prepared for the interview. they ask stupid questions because they don't know what else to ask. the problem arises from not just what they say but also what they do not say.

in such cases, the interviewee might want to take control of the conversation, although interviewee should also ask himself or herself if he/she would really want to work with such a person:

"...you should be asking yourself if this is a company that you want to work for. Says Jivaro's Mr. Bear: "Interviews are meant to be two-way, so you should be assessing if a company that is asking about your sexual orientation is right for you, too.""

Why does the Wall Street Journal have such an unbelievably poor website? Its functionality is high-school level. This was not the comment I was going to leave but, yet once again, another WSJ technical snafu caused my original comment to, apparently, disappear before it was followed by the rather inane comment to "Please enter your comment and then click post." Oh, really? And now that this comment posts it appears the WSJ posted my other comment simultaneously. I will concede, this is even a new snafu I never have seen before.

Finding out if a woman who see herself in a substantive mother role can still work 50 hours a week at a competitive level is a very appropriate thrust. Also for a man who is very involved with the raising of his children. We have bent over backward so far these past 20 to 30 years to accommodate feminism and its related kin that it has contributed to our slipping competitiveness in the world. We are more worried about offending with a very valid question.

As for female participation in the workforce being a negative factor, hardly. All of the five top countries, the US, Germany, Finland, Singapore, and Switzerland have a participation rate above 50%. Switzerland, the top ranked economy, is highest of the five, at 61%.

Most countries (outside the Middle East), have a rate above 40%, meaning that it's probably not a pivotal factor one way or another. Dan

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.